Regarding the nouns and adjective agreement, another argument for this, that I think I haven't seen yet in this thread (unless I missed it, I skimmed over the postings quickly), is to add some redundancy.

People do not hear perfectly. Some amount of redundancy can help ensure that someone heard correctly and understands correctly.

Let's take English for example.

I have brown dogs.
Let's say someone didn't hear the s on dogs. They still can guess that I meant
"brown dogs", because otherwise I would have said "I have a brown dog". There are two changes that accompany the plural word dogs - the s, and the removal of "a".

My dogs love me.
Again, I have redundancy. If someone were to miss the s on dogs, they still know it's plural, due to the verb "love". It would be "My dog loveS me" if it was singular. So we have both the verb and the s telling us that it's plural.

Now let's look at Esperanto. Esperanto has a plural ending but the verb form doesn't vary. So we can't use the verb form as redundance to confirm that we heard the sentence right. Esperanto has no indefinite article, so you can't use the words a/an to add this redundancy. But if you hear "Mi havas brunajn hundon" or "Mi havas brunan hundojn", then we know it's plural even if we missed hearing a -j, because of the redundancy added by the adjective/noun agreement.

The Esperanto ĥ sound is a guttural khhhh kind of sound, like you would find in German or Hebrew or Arabic. You can think of it like clearing your throat. Some Spanish speakers (depending on country of origin) pronounce the letter J like that - Jesus, the name, comes out as "Ĥesus" in Esperanto. Try listening to the sound files for "chet" or "haf" on this Hebrew Alphabet site:
http://www.akhlah.com/aleph_bet/aleph-bet.php

Or, I don't know if you're familiar with the Jewish toast "L'chaim!". The ch in "chaim" is just like the ĥ in Esperanto. It isn't "l'haim", and it isn't "l'kaim" either, it's a different sound.

It comes down to one thing, and that is where I will put my time and money. Should I put it into something that needs work but is used by a large group of people, or should I put it into something that needs less work but is used by a smaller portion of people? I'm very much for an official IAL, as it would save me money in translations of our products, but if people aren't willing to learn the "-n" ending does it still stand a chance?

What you need to ask yourself is, is the perfect the enemy of the good? Let's say another language is 1% better than Esperanto; is that 1% improvement worth starting a brand new community from scratch over, whereas Esperanto already has 100+ years of history, literature, and a community behind it? There are MANY languages with an accusative form. Sometimes it is a word rather than an ending. It sounds foreign and difficult to a native English speaker, but you have to remember that not everyone speaks English, and this form is normal and useful to these people. Also remember that we, too, have accusative forms in English, also in French/Spanish/Italian, etc. In those cases, it has only survived in pronouns, but you still have to learn it correctly, whether it is for pronouns only, or whether it is for all nouns. Because I am certain that you say, "I saw him", and not "I saw he". It is not that difficult to learn how Esperanto's rules of the -n ending differ from English's use of direct and indirect objects in pronouns.

To you and your friends, I respect your right to choose whatever language you like best and support it. I won't make the "might makes right" argument, and I won't say that Esperanto is the best solution that anyone could ever come up with. But perhaps there will never be a "best" solution, and for me personally, "good" is good enough. And I have personally gotten so much out of Esperanto, it is one of the best time investments I ever made. Feel free to contact me privately if you want to know more. I have spoken Esperanto for more than 10 years now, I tutored at lernu for a long time, and I have detailed knowledge of Esperanto grammar and the theory behind it.

Hi Erinja

First, holy crap, excuse the "language", but I wasn't expecting such a long and informed reply. Thank you very much for that, I do appreciate it.

There is so much to reply to that I may miss a point or two, so I'm making my apology in advance.

The redundancy that you've mentioned with adjectives versus English redundancy with agreeing verbs is an excellent point, and I had considered that myself. However, I find that the "oin" sound at the end of the object, or the "oy" sound at the end of a subject or unmodified noun is much more noticeable than the plural in English, so I have sort of discredited that on my own. I'm actually revisiting multiple scenarios, since you mentioned it, and I think the redundancy is important, but it seems that any redundancy is lost without adjectives, which could be fine because such a sentence would likely be shorter... I'm wishy-washy here, but further study is needed.

About the "Hx" sound, I'm able to hear a difference, but producing the sound on my own will likely be more of a challenge than I had hoped.

What you need to ask yourself is, is the perfect the enemy of the good?

Of course I understand that improvement is difficult without the consent of the entire community, or at least the vast majority, which then enforces the "Dived We Fall" comment. However, if the community was willing to accept minor changes, a year at a time, then I see little issue. Even I had considered Novial BECAUSE of the Novial 98 reforms, and that many more reforms are being considered. It wouldn't be a rewrite of the language, my base vocabulary (the most difficult part to learn for me) would remain largely intact, so the "knowledge deterioration" aspect is mostly removed.

I am tempted to assume that much of the community would despise a fixed word structure, and a removal of the "-n" ending, but would this really be difficult to re-learn? How long would it take to get the hang of it? My guess is that I could have a new word order, even an abstract one, covered in about 3 hours of dedicated practice. I completely understand the -n ending, I just despise it (although, Trojo mentioned the translation aspect, and that is likely very important for an IAL) and the more I think about it the more I accept it. Once again, I'm a little flaky about that here.

I would like to thank you for your friendly approach and understanding, perhaps my noted fear of flaming has allowed me to slip by without reprimand, or perhaps it is that the "flame" threads that I've read have a different approach than mine... or maybe the members who overuse the words "idiot" and "moron" are no longer active. In any case, I too am running out of room. I do have some specific questions that I plan on sending you via personal message. They will be short and to the point.

Thanks for taking the time,

Aaron.

The main problem I see with even slight changes, is past literature. If word order was fixed and the accusitive were removed, than everyone in the community would not only have to learn the current form of the language, but also that in the past those forms existed.

Oŝo-Jabe:The main problem I see with even slight changes, is past literature. If word order was fixed and the accusitive were removed, than everyone in the community would not only have to learn the current form of the language, but also that in the past those forms existed.

Oh yes, I agree with you there. I kind of look at that the same way I look at English texts from the early 19th and 18th centuries. They're still understandable to me, but the grammar and vocabulary has changed so much that it can be difficult to understand some passages.

I suppose that it might be best to leave in the accusative ending, or at least make the transition "optional" for awhile, if there were to be one (but I assume it's safe to say that will not happen).

Thanks for the reply!

Also, don't forget that "practice makes perfect".

When I first started learning Esperanto, I just hate, hate, HATED, the accusative case. I constantly made mistakes. It seemed like such an unnecessary complication for a language that aimed at being simple. A lot of the things you are saying, I also said.

That was three years ago. Now, when I don't hear the -n ending, it immediately sounds wrong to me. I use it without thinking about it. I still make mistakes now and then, but heck, I still make mistakes in English, and it's my native language.

Same with the adjectival agreements. Was a problem. Now is not a problem. Seemed silly at first. Now seems perfectly natural.

There's a few reasons you aren't being flamed. One, the moderators here are pretty on top of things, and flames aren't viewed very positively. Second, the people here are, for the most part, pretty nice people, we like the language, want people to learn it, and know that flaming people is a great way to drive them away (which is counter to the goal of getting people excited about the language). But the main reason is that we've all been right where you are. We were all beginners once, and we've all thought many of the same things that you are thinking now. We understand. Really. We do.

My advice: take the time to really learn the language. A few months, half a year, a year, whatever it takes (and it really doesn't take that long). Accept for the moment that the language is what it is, just like any natural language is what it is, and put any thoughts about improving it aside for the time being, no matter how stupid or inefficient or arbitrary certain aspects of it may strike you. Once you've mastered the basics, you can revisit your ideas for improvement. When you do, I'll bet that most of your issues will have fallen by the wayside, and that what seems unnatural now will seem perfectly natural then.

Over the last century and a quarter, many millions of people have learned and used the language. Some 30,000 books have been published in Esperanto. In other words, the language has been thoroughly "vetted" over its lifetime. Not only has every improvement you've thought of so far been thought of before, probably lots of improvements you haven't thought of yet have also been considered.

Pretend (for the moment) that Esperanto actually is the national language of some country somewhere, and approach it from that position. When someone learns German, or French, or etc., they might think that certain constructions are nonsensical or clunky or whatever, but no one realistically talks about adjusting German or French or etc. to make it "better". You just learn it as it is. The fact that Esperanto is a constructed language rather than a natural language is really of no consequence - at this point in time its usage is determined by its history; it is still evolving, but it is no longer being "constructed".

And also don't forget that the point of Esperanto is NOT to be a perfect language. It's goal is to be an easy language. I think it has succeeded in that goal. Yes, there are imperfections in Esperanto, just as there are imperfections in every natural language. But they are small imperfections that do not actually get in the way in practice - getting rid of them at this point in time simply is not a goal of Esperantists who have reached an intermediate or advanced level, because by then they appreciate the language simply for what it is: an effective tool for communication between people from a multitude of backgrounds.

RiotNrrd, thanks for the advice. And I appreciate your dedication to my topic, it definitely does affect my decision making process, and you are making a "difference" so to speak.

I've taken the stance that, yes, Esperanto is not perfect, but it's a good balance between 100% logical (Lojban) with 60 speakers, and 100% illogical (most natural languages) with millions of speakers.

I've managed to convince my friends to give it a second chance, after relaying the arguments found here. I will probably never agree with some ways that Esperanto handles some things, but it is considerably higher than a natural language.

Thanks again, and hopefully I'll stick with it, but I will likely post again when I see something that I do not like.

Dankon,

Aron(o)

What the hell is wrong with you people?

In every other post I keep on seeing things like: "I hope my argument doesn't come around as hostile" or "I know that this might seem offensive but that was not my original intention" and so on and so forth.

Come on, this is a FORUM.
You don't need to apologize in advance for all the "supposed" umbrage your post might give to some high-hat bozo.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boz... definition 1.3)

As for na, I totally like it.
It just makes sence since it's the accusative ending "n" + the adjective ending "a" making the new word mean "n like". You can make words using prefixes as root (e.g. "mala") or suffixes ("ina") so why not endings?

I don't think it contradicts the Fundamento, contrary to what some people have stated.

So, just say "Mi konas na Shoemowetochawcawewahcatowe" (that's a native American name, by the way).

dwarf:What the hell is wrong with you people?

Try to keep your language respectful, please. Lernu terms of use ask that users treat each other respectfully and avoid profanities. There are also children who use this site, and we try to keep it clean.

Also, you can learn a lot more from a civilized debate than from a vicious flamewar. If you respect the opinions of others, even as you disagree with them, people are less likely to feel that they are under attack. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to put people on the defensive, make them dig into their own position and attack everyone else.

dwarf:As for na..I don't think it contradicts the Fundamento..

na as a preposition would contradict the Fundamento because rule 14 of the basic 16 rules says:

"14. Every preposition in the international language has a definite fixed meaning. If it be necessary to employ some preposition, and it is not quite evident from the sense which it should be, the word je is used, which has no definite meaning."

The prepositions having a fixed meaning when the Fundamento was adopted were all included in the Fundamenta Vortaro. They did not, and hence do not, include na.

For the uses for which na is being proposed, al would do just as well. Even if it did not, Rule 14 would require the use of je.

While I prefer the 'je' system, the way dwarf argues it at least, is for 'na' as an adjective, intead of a preposition which ~would~ violate rule 14 as stated by Miland. Does this mean 'na' can theoretically take the -j?

Like: Li amas naj Ana kaj Suza.

And if -n->na is accepted, what words could the -o, -j, -a, and -e morphemes become?